MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3175989018 · doi:10.21037/atm-20-4947

Surgical treatment of joint burn scar contracture: a 10-year single-center experience with long-term outcome evaluation

2021· article· en· W3175989018 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Zhouji Ma, Ran Mo, Chen Chen, Xueyong Meng, Qian Tan

Bibliographic record

VenueAnnals of Translational Medicine · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBurn Injury Management and Outcomes
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersFundamental Research Funds for the Central UniversitiesGovernment of Jiangsu ProvinceNational Natural Science Foundation of China
KeywordsMedicineContractureScarsSurgerySingle CenterIncidence (geometry)Retrospective cohort studyPatient satisfactionCohortInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Burn patients often have functional problems due to joint scar contracture. Patients suffering from such contracture often experience considerable limitations in daily life. Therefore, surgical treatment is often necessary. Skin grafts, especially full-thickness skin grafts and flaps remain the most commonly used surgical methods in clinical practice. However, there are no clear guidelines stating which technique is the most effective treatment. Herein, we conducted a retrospective cohort study over 10 years of experience at a single center to investigate whether flaps or FTSGs exhibit a better long-term effect. METHODS: We performed a retrospective chart review of patients with joint burn scar contracture and collected data related to patient demographic profiles, and detailed descriptions of the scars, surgical procedures, and follow-up were collected. We performed follow-up evaluation of three aspects: adverse events (recontracture, ache, and pruritus), satisfaction scores for function and aesthetics, and scar quality (Vancouver Scar Scale score). RESULTS: Follow-up results 1 year after surgery from 88 patients were analyzed. In total, 4 (10%) patients in the flap group and 13 (27.1%) patients in the FTSG group had recontracture; the incidence of recontracture was lower in the flap group than in the FTSG group (P=0.043). The functional satisfaction score of the flap group was higher than that of the FTSG group (P=0.027). Moreover, follow-up results 5 year after surgery for 47 patients were analyzed. In total, 1 (4.8%) patient in the flap group and 7 (26.9%) patients in the FTSG group had recontracture; the incidence of recontracture was significantly lower in the flap group than in the FTSG group (P=0.044). The functional satisfaction score in the flap group was higher than that of the FTSG group (P=0.041). In this study, no significant differences in scar quality were observed between the two groups. CONCLUSIONS: If conditions permit, the application of different types of flaps may represent a better choice than FTSGs in terms of reducing the recontracture rate and improving joint function.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.024
Threshold uncertainty score0.997

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.209
GPT teacher head0.408
Teacher spread0.199 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations16
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAnnals of Translational MedicineSame topicBurn Injury Management and OutcomesFrench-language works237,207